Maurice Quinlivan (Limerick City, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on this Bill. As the Minister of State, Deputy Richmond, referenced, as Chairperson of the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment, I was pleased to facilitate an examination of the Unified Patent Court, UPC, in 2022. In selecting that topic, the committee was keenly aware that Ireland was well behind many other countries in Europe on this issue. Although Ireland signed the Unified Patent Court agreement in 2013, the required referendum to alter the Irish Constitution and ratify the UPC has yet to take place. I understand it is now scheduled to take place in June 2024.

The purpose of the Unified Patent Court is to fundamentally reform the patent system in Europe and Ireland and provide a legal framework. The reform consists of two pillars, that is, the creation of a European patent and unitary effect in the establishment of the Unified Patent Court, and an entirely new multinational court for pan-European patent litigation. A single court ruling would be directly applicable in the member states that have ratified the Unified Patent Court agreement. This will enable patent holders to enforce their rights and defend patents in one single ruling, providing a cost-effective remedy and protections. As has been said, Ireland requires a successful passing of a constitutional referendum to ratify the Unified Patent Court agreement as it entails a transfer of jurisdiction in patent litigation from the Irish courts to an international court. In publishing that report, on behalf of the committee, I would like to thank the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, IBEC, the Law Society of Ireland and the Association of Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys for providing comprehensive submissions to us. All the submissions greatly assisted the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment in its deliberations and analysis of this topic. I also wish to thank the members of the committee, particularly Deputies O'Reilly and Stanton, for their collaborative work in agreeing that report at the time. I also thank the secretariat of the committee for its work in the report and those who assisted the joint committee with its consideration of that issue.

One of two recommendations the committee made at that time was that preparatory plans be put in place for the establishment and host of a local division of the Unified Patent Court in Ireland. Unfortunately, we have now probably missed that opportunity. The witnesses we called expressed concern about the timeline regarding Ireland's participation. They all spoke to the economic benefits they believed being in the court and having a local division will have for Ireland. That was 18 months ago and since then, there has been very little discussion on this matter in the public sphere. Now, three months out from a referendum, we are discussing the Bill.

IBEC in its comments about the establishment of a UPC spoke of the strategic position this State is in as an English-speaking European state, and that this presents a huge opportunity for us, especially with the departure of Britain from the EU. It further argued that this State could leverage its position as a hub of the patent industry to attract foreign direct investment, which is obviously a tantalising prospect. It reckons that having a local division could be of benefit to the economy by hundreds of millions of euro every single year.

So far, so good, but there are alternative positions on ratifying this court and it is important to take stock of some of those. Some suggest that at the moment, without the UPC, a patent challenge occurs in an individual country and that the ruling applies only within the state sphere. They suggest that with the UPC, a patent would be threatened in multiple countries at the same time. They further suggest that SMEs may not have the capability and resources to navigate what would be a complex legal landscape across Europe. They also suggest that the system could lead to a split in the patent landscape with competition between the unified patent and non-unified patent countries. Not all the EU countries are signing up and some have stated that it is not for them.

I am concerned that in the run-up to the June referendum, there will not be enough time to detail to the electorate what the vote is about. As my colleague said, it is a complicated and probably technical and boring Bill, the merits of which we will have to try to persuade people about on the day. We have left it very late in the day to be discussing this matter in the Chamber. I am concerned that without enough time to digest the particulars of what people are being asked about, the turnout will be very low. It will obviously help that the vote will take place on the same day as the local and European elections but there still needs to be a significant information campaign in advance of the vote to ensure turnout and ensure people know what they are voting on. A "Yes" vote in the referendum will allow the State to join the Unified Patent Court system. It has taken the European Union a long time to get to the position where the systems are operational. They have been in operation in 17 EU states since its inception in June 2023. If we do ratify the UPC, it will hold full authority in certain patent matters over time. It will have exclusive jurisdiction over patents and patent matters. It is a complex and technical change that is being proposed and is an issue unlike other recent constitutional changes on which, with the exception of the two taking place next week, I suspect many in the electorate will not hold a deep-seated conviction.

The UPC is a court with judges from all participating member states to decide on the infringement and ability of both unitary patents and European patents. As I said, the court is over a decade in the making, with the agreement of the Unified Patent Court being signed in February 2013. Since then, it has had its challenges. Stripped to its most basic, it seeks to unify the patent system across the EU to replace the current complex system, encompassing both national and European patents. It is an attempt to homogenise the system across the member states.

Many see the court as a significant achievement regarding intellectual property rights, while others have concerns that this changes the role of sovereignty of those states that have signed up. There is, therefore, much for us to consider and there will be a lot for the electorate to consider as well. Ratifying this court is not straightforward and there are many merits, but there are also some demerits. I have a huge concern that with such a short timeframe between now and the vote, the public will not have time to make an informed decision on this matter. If we want to join the UPC, then we must amend Article 29 of the Constitution. I would prefer not to see this decision made with only a minority of eligible voters casting their ballots. We need to ensure we get as large a turnout as we can. Their needs to be a focused and relatable information package created to ensure the electorate makes an informed decision. It is really important that people are informed on what we are asking them to vote on before the referendum.

See this speech in context